These are troubled times, but I guess monarchists have something to say and something to offer as a possible solution for many problems that shake the world. That's why I call myself "radical royalist" because I am unashamedly in favour of a monarchy - anywhere!
Omnis regis fautor sum: Regalis nihil mihi alienum est

Saturday, 12 August 2006

While republicans of all sorts flood the internet, royalists tend to be left without a strong voice. Well, here is one. May be not too strong for the time being, but trying to give a perspective of the world from the monarchist point of view.

I will annoy republicans with comments on current affairs as well as on historic events relevant for us.

These are troubled times, but I guess monarchists have something to say and something to offer as a possible solution for many problems that shake the world.

That's why I call myself "radical royalist" because I am unashamedly in favour of a monarchy - anywhere!

Let's take Afghanistan as an example. It would be a better place if the US had not imposed a former vice director of one of Mr. Cheney's oil companies (Unocal) as president of "Kabulistan", but had instead given the Afghani people the opportunity to have their king back.

The US even prevented discussion about the king's return as head of state in the Loya Jirga despite the very clear desire of many of the representatives of the Afghan people present, even going so far as to falsely announce the King's "wish" not to be head of state, ahead of the meeting.

His Majesty King Mohammed Zahir Shah is pictured here.

This reads more like a bad thriller but much of the instability in Afghanistan comes from the failure of this US policy.

"President" Karzai, who has to be guarded by foreign bodyguards, will never hold the respect of the Afghan people in the way the King does.

The core of the present instability lies in the fact that the "warlords" who rule much of Afghanistan, owe no clan or tribal loyalty to Karzai (or his US backers) whereas they certainly do to the King.

This failure is the just the latest example of the so-called democratic regime change imposed by the US on smaller nations to the detriment of those nations and their peoples.

Perhaps because a monarch cannot be owned by foreign interests in quite the same way as numerous dictators supported by the big powers and big companies have been they clearly represent a threat. Nothing like a good dose of "regime change" to sort that out!

So now you know where I stand... a monarchist voice is needed in the world debate to counter the cacaphony of pseudo-intellectual babblings from republicans.

And perhaps a few points to consider:

Which monarch murdered 9 million of his people?

Which monarch guillotined thousands and drowned thousands more in the rivers?

Which monarch initiated the holocaust?

The answer: NONE ...these are the acts of Stalin, Robespierre and Hitler.